If find you more tolerant than the OP for sure. I am not saying focus on economic progress is wrong per se; I mean India's core problems are socio-economic in nature. I recently read somewhere that though the caste related issues have been "sorted" in "modern" India; when one actually looks at the figures, those employed in the better jobs are still the Brahmins, while the backward castes are given the worse, menial jobs. So creating steel & glass buildings in the metropolitans is a facade of progress if the real problems that lie below reveal a mentality that's as bad as racism. That's all I meant when I said focus on the real core issues such as education, women-empowerment, corruption in bureaucracy, etc before erecting buildings and bridges. Though I am not saying the latter is bad or not required. But the OP has taken Modi for a mascot to shape his own personal vendetta against other religions and "scums". India's greater than that!

Well, let's leave the OP's agrendas out of our discussion.

As you said, socio-economic problems. The two are connected. Many of the issues you mentioned are still prevalent even in urban India(as you point out), but it is undeniable that the severity of the issues is much much lesser than that in rural India. Economic growth helps in "urabanizing" rural India, which indirectly will help with the "real issues" that you mention.

I think you are mistaking economic development with infrastructural. The former includes the latter, but is not limited to that. It includes a lot about policies on encouraging business, foreign investments, trade, agriculture, creating SEZs etc. All points in which Modi has made a big difference during his period as Chief Minister(CM) of the state of Gujarat. An important example of which is that Gujarat now has the highest foreign investments of India(between 15-25% of the total, depending on the way you look at it).

Also, infrastructural growth is not limited to bridges and glass buildings in the big cities. It includes making roads for easy access in and out of the rural parts. (A past non-Modi example: Easy road access between Mumbai and Pune played a big role in making Pune into the flourishing city that it is now). Infrastructural growth is what facilitates bringing water and electricity to parts of India which doesn't have it. So, yes, this is extremely important and should be a first priority. Important examples of Modi in Gujarat woth mentioning is the Can-top solar power plant, something that generates solar energy while preventing evaporation of very important rivers; Gujarat has the infrastructure to provide E-services to rural parts, both of which are the only ones of its kind in India. Things like this on a national level will go a long way in solving all the problems you mention.

Modi-critics will say that Gujarat is lacking in so many areas(and many of their points are very true), but (irrespective of his stance on far-right Hindutva) nobody can deny that he got very important things done. And India needs someone like that.

Please. The whole world knows that the 1947 partition was a pro muslim step except our dumb "educated" hindus who are brainwashed by pseudo western theories like secularism and have absolutely no sense of preserving their original nationalist identity which is Dharma. Russia, Australia and Burma are not fools to stay firm AGAINST muslim wishes in their country. They know the potential threats posed by that religion.
Show me one country in the world with 50% muslim population that is secular. The thing is, there isn't one. Soon Muslim population in India is going to hit the 30% mark and that is significant enough to start demanding 30% of our country along with kashmir already.

While hindus continue to sleep thinking that India is a safe secular country, the west and muslims will work together to turn India into a complete sickular country with 28 mini pakistans, one in each state.

West shot themselves in the foot with stupidity like Secularism and other incorrect shit which is 2000 years old. They call it "modern". Now they want to see India collapse under the secular mask. It's up to the hindus to see the damage and react. Otherwise our succeeding generations are going to suffer.

Yes, the partition may very well have been a mistake, but IMO, that is a different discussion. What do you mean by our "original nationalist identity"? If you want to go way back, Changragupta Maurya was Jain, Ashoka was Buddhist. Pre-British rule, the only other national identity we had was under Mughal(Islam) rule. So, are you going to say our national identity comes from Adi Sankara's philosophies? Fact is that our national identity stemmed from the uprising against the British rule. By your attitude, I guess you are strong proponent of Savarkar's ideas. But as you know, the Hindu Mahasabha never caught on back then. So, saying that their ideas form our original national identity is just absurd. Our national identity is largely a cultural one. One with many diverse cultures. And whether you like it or note, that includes Islam.

What is all the comparison with the west based on? Countries like the US may be pro-tolerance on the face of it, but they are much more anti-Islam than India is.

By the way, official figures have the Muslim population of India at just under 15%. So, even if you say that it is off by 5%, 30% if far off from the truth.

Yes, the partition may very well have been a mistake, but IMO, that is a different discussion. What do you mean by our "original nationalist identity"? If you want to go way back, Changragupta Maurya was Jain, Ashoka was Buddhist. Pre-British rule, the only other national identity we had was under Mughal(Islam) rule. So, are you going to say our national identity comes from Adi Sankara's philosophies? Fact is that our national identity stemmed from the uprising against the British rule. By your attitude, I guess you are strong proponent of Savarkar's ideas. But as you know, the Hindu Mahasabha never caught on back then. So, saying that their ideas form our original national identity is just absurd. Our national identity is largely a cultural one. One with many diverse cultures. And whether you like it or note, that includes Islam.

What is all the comparison with the west based on? Countries like the US may be pro-tolerance on the face of it, but they are much more anti-Islam than India is.

By the way, official figures have the Muslim population of India at just under 15%. So, even if you say that it is off by 5%, 30% if far off from the truth.

Ever heard about Sanatana Dharma? The holiness and identity of India has been Sanatana Dharma for several thousands of years well before the time of all the kings (originally hindu kings by the way) you mentioned.

Your brainwashed soul is exactly the type of hindus I am criticizing today. Well we don't know if you have already converted to some other religion and preaching secularism like most converts do but assuming that you are still a hindu, that's very dumb what you have said.

How is islam a part of our culture? Because they invaded us and set up a rule at the center? Shall we include terrorist philosophies too because terrorism has been part of india too in the last 20 years. They are muslims too and they want India as well?

Sanatana Dharma is the truly original identity of India. It emerged in India and India is considered a vedic land even today. Secular propaganda is just that, a propaganda by the west. The whole world identified India with Hinduism, it is a total shame that there exist west loving "secular" hindus who are unknowingly posing a damage to their succeeding generations.

@@@Fact is that our national identity stemmed from the uprising against the British rule.

My foot. India is still not independent as long as Dharma is not restored back. Post "independence" British ruler in India Nehru turned it into a mughal dynasty rule again and his family succeeded in making India a living hell for its real people the hindus.

And partition wasn't the right thing for India, we lost a lot of prime fertile land to Muslim fundamentalists and what kind of hell Pakistan has become now

Look at our Indian "seculars" like the poster above. They brush aside partition calling it a 'mistake'. I have seen exactly the same explanation from many urban "seculars" when I question them about the pro-muslim partition.

If Sardar Patel had not sent the military and drive out all the scum to Pakistan, India would have been an islamic country by now. Now we need another Sardar Patel and that would be Modi.

Yes, the partition may very well have been a mistake, but IMO, that is a different discussion. What do you mean by our "original nationalist identity"? If you want to go way back, Changragupta Maurya was Jain, Ashoka was Buddhist. Pre-British rule, the only other national identity we had was under Mughal(Islam) rule. So, are you going to say our national identity comes from Adi Sankara's philosophies? Fact is that our national identity stemmed from the uprising against the British rule. By your attitude, I guess you are strong proponent of Savarkar's ideas. But as you know, the Hindu Mahasabha never caught on back then. So, saying that their ideas form our original national identity is just absurd. Our national identity is largely a cultural one. One with many diverse cultures. And whether you like it or note, that includes Islam.

What is all the comparison with the west based on? Countries like the US may be pro-tolerance on the face of it, but they are much more anti-Islam than India is.

By the way, official figures have the Muslim population of India at just under 15%. So, even if you say that it is off by 5%, 30% if far off from the truth.

Maurya and Ashoka were both born Hindu and its only in thier retirement they took Jain and Buddhism

And mughals were never a "happy" identity of India, most of them Luke babar,zeb,tipu were bigots, looters and what nots, they were never respected amongst the masses and were always attacked by the Rajputs and kshatriyas

And the most popular of the Mughal,Akbar,had committed ghastly of war crimes

So mughals were never India's identity

And lets leave the British aside, India was the richest before they came and became one of the poorest after they left, in just 300 years flat

And its the Wahabi Sunni Sect that creates the most problem in the world, according to them only Allah is the way of lite and the rest are unimportant. And all they want is the whole world to become Islamic

Maurya and Ashoka were both born Hindu and its only in thier retirement they took Jain and Buddhism

And mughals were never a "happy" identity of India, most of them Luke babar,zeb,tipu were bigots, looters and what nots, they were never respected amongst the masses and were always attacked by the Rajputs and kshatriyas

And the most popular of the Mughal,Akbar,had committed ghastly of war crimes

So mughals were never India's identity

And lets leave the British aside, India was the richest before they came and became one of the poorest after they left, in just 300 years flat

And its the Wahabi Sunni Sect that creates the most problem in the world, according to them only Allah is the way of lite and the rest are unimportant. And all they want is the whole world to become Islamic

But sorry buddy I am a proud Hindu and won't let that happen

My only point was to show the OP that any form of 'national identity' could not have existed before we were a nation. And we only became a nation after the British came to India. We never were the richest nation, we were a group of regions with close to zero unity, each of which were very rich. The few times that we were anything close to a unified nation were the Gupta, Maurya and Mughal rules. And neither of them had a very strong Hindu fundamentalism ideal. There may have been a few emperors(maybe Bindusara?) who weren't, but as afaik a lot of the Hindu emperors of this period were quite tolerant to other religions. Ashoka embraced Buddhism well before retirement. He was after all responsible for the construction of so many stupas. All said and done, parts of the Maurya period were responsible for the spread of Jainism and Buddhism beliefs. The Gupta dynasty was also very tolerant of Buddhism. So, calling either of them a Hindu fundamentalist anti-minorty period is wrong.

No matter what way you look at it, a Hindu dharma which preaches violence to other religions is NOT our "original nationalist identity"(as the OP suggests).

Ever heard about Sanatana Dharma? The holiness and identity of India has been Sanatana Dharma for several thousands of years well before the time of all the kings (originally hindu kings by the way) you mentioned.

Your brainwashed soul is exactly the type of hindus I am criticizing today. Well we don't know if you have already converted to some other religion and preaching secularism like most converts do but assuming that you are still a hindu, that's very dumb what you have said.

How is islam a part of our culture? Because they invaded us and set up a rule at the center? Shall we include terrorist philosophies too because terrorism has been part of india too in the last 20 years. They are muslims too and they want India as well?

Sanatana Dharma is the truly original identity of India. It emerged in India and India is considered a vedic land even today. Secular propaganda is just that, a propaganda by the west. The whole world identified India with Hinduism, it is a total shame that there exist west loving "secular" hindus who are unknowingly posing a damage to their succeeding generations.

Funny. So you preach a strict adherence of Vedic religion and yet condone violence against the innocent?

My only point was to show the OP that any form of 'national identity' could not have existed before we were a nation. And we only became a nation after the British came to India. We never were the richest nation, we were a group of regions with close to zero unity, each of which were very rich. The few times that we were anything close to a unified nation were the Gupta, Maurya and Mughal rules. And neither of them had a very strong Hindu fundamentalism ideal. There may have been a few emperors(maybe Bindusara?) who weren't, but as afaik a lot of the Hindu emperors of this period were quite tolerant to other religions. Ashoka embraced Buddhism well before retirement. He was after all responsible for the construction of so many stupas. All said and done, parts of the Maurya period were responsible for the spread of Jainism and Buddhism beliefs. The Gupta dynasty was also very tolerant of Buddhism. So, calling either of them a Hindu fundamentalist anti-minorty period is wrong.

No matter what way you look at it, a Hindu dharma which preaches violence to other religions is NOT our "original nationalist identity"(as the OP suggests).

Don't think OP has ever suggested being a hindu Nationalist ever equates to being disrespectful to other religions

Don't think OP has ever suggested being a hindu Nationalist ever equates to being disrespectful to other religions

In fact Hinduism has always been respectful,

Well then you clearly haven't been following this thread. OP has been anti-secularism, pro-Hindu, anti-minortiy the entire time. His form of Hindu nationalism involves not just disrespect to other religions, but he wants to eliminate them from the country.

Muslims and christians are the effective majority in India today, thanks to hindu divisive politics of disgraceful congress party of India. Hinduism is currently under seize in India with pseudo secularism and Congress's evil ways of weakening Hinduism.

Hindus constitute 80% of indian population but look at who is in charge at the center currently. Go through the write-up below to know the truth yourself.

---

Why India needs NaMo(Narendra Modi) to remain a secular state?
(Article by Sesha Giri Prabhu)
[...]
Since Congress chairperson Sonia Gandhi led UPA, the sinister efforts are underway to selectively appoint the Christians and Muslims in sensitive and powerful positions within the administration.
[...]
For all practical purposes, the overall Hindu people and India as the country are presently under a state of siege.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bhārata Satvan

You are asking sources of pseudo genuine western media for approval of pseudo secularism in India.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bhārata Satvan

But I am sure they are determined to give Dharma the topmost priority and eliminate all the anti dharmic scum from the country.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bhārata Satvan

There has not been any effort left out to weaken Hinduism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bhārata Satvan

If you guys have so much passion for "secularism", you are all welcome to share your countries and homes with the sweet bangladesh muslims. We have had enough with the terrorist religion and pseudo secularism and want a free Hindu state.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bhārata Satvan

Russia, Australia and Burma are not fools to stay firm AGAINST muslim wishes in their country. They know the potential threats posed by that religion.

[...] Soon Muslim population in India is going to hit the 30% mark and that is significant enough to start demanding 30% of our country along with kashmir already.

While hindus continue to sleep thinking that India is a safe secular country, the west and muslims will work together to turn India into a complete sickular country with 28 mini pakistans, one in each state.

West shot themselves in the foot with stupidity like Secularism and other incorrect shit which is 2000 years old. They call it "modern". Now they want to see India collapse under the secular mask. It's up to the hindus to see the damage and react. Otherwise our succeeding generations are going to suffer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bhārata Satvan

Your brainwashed soul is exactly the type of hindus I am criticizing today. Well we don't know if you have already converted to some other religion and preaching secularism like most converts do but assuming that you are still a hindu, that's very dumb what you have said.

The whole world identified India with Hinduism, it is a total shame that there exist west loving "secular" hindus who are unknowingly posing a damage to their succeeding generations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bhārata Satvan

Post "independence" British ruler in India Nehru turned it into a mughal dynasty rule again and his family succeeded in making India a living hell for its real people the hindus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bhārata Satvan

If Sardar Patel had not sent the military and drive out all the scum to Pakistan, India would have been an islamic country by now. Now we need another Sardar Patel and that would be Modi.

My only point was to show the OP that any form of 'national identity' could not have existed before we were a nation. And we only became a nation after the British came to India. We never were the richest nation, we were a group of regions with close to zero unity, each of which were very rich. The few times that we were anything close to a unified nation were the Gupta, Maurya and Mughal rules. And neither of them had a very strong Hindu fundamentalism ideal. There may have been a few emperors(maybe Bindusara?) who weren't, but as afaik a lot of the Hindu emperors of this period were quite tolerant to other religions. Ashoka embraced Buddhism well before retirement. He was after all responsible for the construction of so many stupas. All said and done, parts of the Maurya period were responsible for the spread of Jainism and Buddhism beliefs. The Gupta dynasty was also very tolerant of Buddhism. So, calling either of them a Hindu fundamentalist anti-minorty period is wrong.

No matter what way you look at it, a Hindu dharma which preaches violence to other religions is NOT our "original nationalist identity"(as the OP suggests).

They were tolerant of other religions because there was no Islam back then. You really need to try harder to fool people.

Violence? Did I call for killing or evacuation of muslims anywhere in my posts? Why are you twisting my words?

Well then you clearly haven't been following this thread. OP has been anti-secularism, pro-Hindu, anti-minortiy the entire time. His form of Hindu nationalism involves not just disrespect to other religions, but he wants to eliminate them from the country.

You need to recheck my posts. I only said I want to eliminate anti dharmic scum and illegal bangladesh muslims.

Don't think OP has ever suggested being a hindu Nationalist ever equates to being disrespectful to other religions

In fact Hinduism has always been respectful,

That is the way of their "secular" defensive mechanism. When you question about the incorrect partition, they call it a mistake. When you call for elimination of illegal bangladesh/pakistan people and anti hindu scum from India, they will brand you a fascist and hindu extremist.

We are seeking protection for our Dharma in our land and the name which "seculars" give for that is religious extremism. Disgusting to the say the least.

They were tolerant of other religions because there was no Islam back then. You really need to try harder to fool people.

Violence? Did I call for killing or evacuation of muslims anywhere in my posts? Why are you twisting my words?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bhārata Satvan

You need to recheck my posts. I only said I want to eliminate anti dharmic scum and illegal bangladesh muslims.

My bad. Guess you were just calling them scum and praising violence against them. "Eliminate" does not involve any violence, right? And please enlighten me, who exactly fall under this "anti dharmic scum"?